Group D - opponent watch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

It's not self loathing, its that stutts didnt predict it and therefore usual back-slapping and thanking of eachtothers posts didnt happen.

Its only self-loating when its me and TOWK disagreeing with how everyone else reads/sees it.

I agree with that post pretty much in the entirety.

---

crikey, will you ever ditch this "me and TOWK against the world" nonsense. I thank posts I agree with and don't thank posts I don't. I don't thank yours that often because they are often poorly thought out, self-congratulatory, and dare I say it, narky digs at people.

I don't like TOWK's abrasive style and proclamations of being some wild contrarian visionary up against a lynch mob. Much of what he says is very true, but the needless sophism and exaggeration gets on my wick. I don't think anyone here disagrees with him in his assessment of the match or other issues, it's the degree of outrage and the degree of adulation heaped at Scotland that's being queried. All you appreciate is the perceived contrarianism, not the content.

And what did I not predict exactly? I have no idea what you're on about. I fail to predict lots of things but not one single bit of the Georgia performance surprised me.

I'd say Scotland / Poland is pretty comparable to Sweden / Austria, and harder than our peers in previous Trap campaigns. But we weren't that far off Sweden and Austria. Clark brain fart, a moment of Long genius off the post, a Long header straight at the keeper from 8 yards, dumb substitutions and a deflected injury time goal - yet we still drew 2-2 with Austria. On another night we'd have snuck a narrow home win over Sweden, or at least drawn. Long inexplicably not squaring the ball to Keane stands out, as does his wild effort in Stockholm. Isaacson could have been sent off, and so on.

Being competitive against thse sides is never the issue and I doubt it'll be an issue under O'Neill. The key is to make those marginal gains in place of those marginal mistakes. Trap never did.

I'm not hugely confident O'Neill has it in his locker to make that critical difference but I can still remember his early days at Celtic when they eeked out hard results until they found their mojo. There are lots of lessons from history in his favour, others not in his favour. Let's wait and see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

He wasnt hiding Delorean, you wouldnt have noticed his runs off the ball on TV as it wasnt being shown, but he was running about and trying spot gaps or breaks in the defensive line and then look for the pass, but more often than not he looked lost, bar the the ball for mcgeadys two goals. He was just so high up the line he was ineffective, he didn't seem suited to the role at all. That's why I go back to the other point O'Neill never made the right change, he should have brought mccarthy back, brought on hoolahan, taken off walters. Still time to make the Long substitution but that should have happened on 60 mins.

---

McGeady should have been pulled off for Brady, the stylish free kick specialist and good passer of the ball.
Nobody admitting that one:D

I think we're talking about degrees of analysis. We're don't disagree all that much, collectively. But I do also detect a streak of self-loathing, in the sense that what to my mind is a work-in-progress is getting a serious battering in terms of analysis. There's also very little benefit of the doubt being given to the manager or players, in some quarters.

I thought we deserved to win the game on Sunday, because even though we were utterly wasteful, we were at least pressing and playing with a degree (just a degree) of misguided agency. We also never looked like losing the game, which was always a danger in the Trapattoni era. We were in total control for the last half hour and most of the first half. That's enough to push us in front for me.

Likewise, in some posts I think a very good Scottish performance is being used as a revelatory stick to beat the crap out of M'ON, the players and FAI. On another day, the score would have been 8-3 to Germany.

As such, I don't think I'm ready to subscribe to the Scottish method just quite yet. Does that mean I don't appreciate that Scotland played very well away to the world champs? That there isn't something to learn? Of course not. I just think perspective is being lost in hyperbole.

I don't feel too downhearted about our lack of creativity in the final stagaes on Sunday. We need to remember that we're still seeing a team coming to terms with a couple of dreadful years. Our composure when under pressure is paper-thin, our confidence too.

It's to be expected, but it also means that when we panic - like we did in the last half hour on Sunday - we're likely to go route one and lose our patience on the ball (we had some patience in the first half). But good results and some coaxing from the management will help change this ment-al-it-ee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

McGeady should have been pulled off for Brady, the stylish free kick specialist and good passer of the ball.
Nobody admitting that one:D

---

I haven't seen much style from him over the last 2 games, bar his hair and boots. :)

Stutts would you stop going on. I'm saying that anyone I meet off this forum and you know it too has a completely different view of how people on here see it. That doesnt seem to be recnogised and the ridicule is quite funny on here, but you seem to take it personally. Crikey stop going on as if you don't really agree, because deep down you do :)

Quote:

---

I thought we deserved to win the game on Sunday, because even though we were utterly wasteful

---

We weren't creative enough to be wasteful - we weren't even wasteful!

I admire your innocence on backing the manager to the hilt, whatever you did for Trap and now for Martin or maybe defending one of your own. I certainly wasn't using scotlands performance as a stick to beat Mon with. I was using Mons performance to beat him with his own stick. It's early days though Martin has plenty of time to prove himself capable and learn from these mistakes, I am certainly willing to give him the chance.

We never looked like losing the game because we kept possession in their half mostly in the last 20 or so. That's about the only positive to take from Georgia, but thats only a positive when compared to our previous games under Trap - so that intself is only a step forward not necessarily a positive in the grand scheme of things.

Not really relevant to this thread but seeing as other qualifiers have been discussed here I'll post it. Just came across this when I was trying to figure out why there were only two matches played in Wales' group last night. Of course it was obvious when I found out Israel v Belgium was the unplayed fixture. Fair play to Belgium for agreeing to reschedule seeing as they seem to have been offered a 'Mainz' type scenario. It would have been a seriously easier fixture in a neutral setting and a potential advantage on their other opponents.

The Jerusalem Post


Wales have Bosnia at home in their next match. After the results last night, what an opportunity that is to dent Bosnia's chances and put themselves right into the mix. Even at this early stage I would think it will give a massive indication of their chances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

We weren't creative enough to be wasteful - we weren't even wasteful!

---

Our crossing and passing in the final third, particularly in the last half hour, was dreadful. How many crosses hit the first man? Quite a few. There were plenty of instances too where decent build up positions were lost by players making bad passes or bad decisions. We don't have to be six or 16 yards out from goal to be wasteful. For me, that was the case on Sunday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I admire your innocence on backing the manager to the hilt, whatever you did for Trap and now for Martin or maybe defending one of your own.

---

You've hurt my innocent feelings with that one. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

I'm saying that anyone I meet off this forum and you know it too has a completely different view of how people on here see it.

---

Everyone on foot.ie thinks the same! Everyone not on foot.ie thinks the same! And only one side can be absolutely 100% correct. So simple and so beautiful. I too admire your innocence POSH. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

How come no one else copped on he meant Roy Keane? thats why ye need to listen to me about Grealish I interpret it the way it was meant :P

---

Since TOWK was slagging a Keane off, I assumed it must have been Robbie, as usual. :p

Plus, John O'Shea and Robbie did actually share a laugh before the anthem started because John couldn't spot the massive tricolour sitting there right in front of him so he'd know which way to face. I thought TOWK was referring to that episode, although it makes sense that he'd have been talking about Roy now I re-read what he wrote as he made reference to him earning his money. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Did we though? Sammy was on saying after that a draw would have been a fair result, and I would have to say I agree. We had 1 shot on goal in the 2nd half, we had lots of possession but did nothing with it. Having lots of possession is never a reason to deservedly win a game.

---

Who's Sammy? In terms of goals scored, shots on target, possession and territorial advantage, we were ahead. I think it's fair to say we were dominant. Maybe the dominance was slight, but we were still dominant. That's not something to be scoffed at in tough conditions; nearly 30°C heat and away in eastern Europe. Even dismissing the stats and simply going with gut feeling, I never once feared they were likely to sneak a winner.

That can't be right that we had one shot on goal in the second half. Besides the goal, I distinctly remember another McGeady effort where he came in from the left and hit it with the inside of his right foot from just outside the corner of the box. It was on-target and at keeper's-head-height.

Having lots of possession isn't reason enough to deservedly win a game, sure, but converting your possession into scoring more goals than your opponent can manage certainly is. ;) We lacked creativity, yes, but the winning goal came about for the very reason that we were dominating possession in the right area of the field.

I just saw an edited highlights clip of Switzerland v England on SKY and it reminded me of this thread.

Switzerland missed 3 gilt edged chances at critical times in the game. England took two of their four., one of which only arose because the Swiss were pressing high for an equaliser. Goals change games. Results change perceptions of performances. Had England lost they'd have been hammered by the media and public. I think England played decently enough in two WC games, lost, but they got hammered.

Scotland could have easily been 3 down before they even came up for air. They weren't, and eventually got lauded.

Any game of football is about taking chances. In the key marginal matches over the years (Israel, Slovakia, Sweden, Austria, Bulgaria, and even some of the top seeds at home) we have had at least as many chances as we have conceded. Obviously Germany at home wasn't a marginal match!

Also, they just showed Niall McGinn's contribution for lafferty's winner. 88mins on the clock, McGinn's picks the ball up and drives through the middle, taking on and beating his man and, albeit after a fortuitous rebound, they created the opening.

I'm not saying we weren't pressing for the winner late on, we were, but the other O'Neill trusted his more attack minded players to play their game away from home. I'd like to see our O'Neill do the same. I hate the idea of Walters being some sort of defender/attacker/wide player hybrid, at the expense of a more dynamic attacking player. Would Michael O'Neill have left Wes on the bench?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Scotland could have easily been 3 down before they even came up for air. They weren't, and eventually got lauded.

---

I'll take three points over a moral victory every day

Quote:

---

Everyone on foot.ie thinks the same! Everyone not on foot.ie thinks the same! And only one side can be absolutely 100% correct. So simple and so beautiful. I too admire your innocence POSH

---

Now I feel sorry for you, you're life must be very complicated, if you think football its not straightforward, its extremely simple. Your posts suggest that complication though and unending questioning. I wonder how you contemplate a route from A to b that has 6 different options. Scary :P It's all about results win or lose, if you play well you increase the chances of winning assuming the opposition are a similar or lower level, if you don't play well and the opposition are of similar level you increase the risk of losing. There are of course exceptions where you play badly and win and you win and play badly or you get one off freak results or even beating a team above well above your ability from time to time, but football is generally a straightforward and simple game. IF we play well enough and to our potential we can beat Scotland, if we don't we won't*. The views of how we play differ on here to what I hear and see from anyone else off here, it is that simple.

* Draws have been left out for extra simplicity ;-)

**Again there are few certainties in life, something magnificent could happen.

But if it's so simple, how come we keep getting it wrong on here, and just so bloody often too? We must be really, really stupid. I feel so dumb right now. Please help us see the light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

The views of how we play differ on here to what I hear and see from anyone else off here, it is that simple.

---

Can I get a quick summation of these views? I'd like to know how I feel about things. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Now I feel sorry for you, you're life must be very complicated, if you think football its not straightforward, its extremely simple. Your posts suggest that complication though and unending questioning. I wonder how you contemplate a route from A to b that has 6 different options. Scary :P It's all about results win or lose, if you play well you increase the chances of winning assuming the opposition are a similar or lower level, if you don't play well and the opposition are of similar level you increase the risk of losing. There are of course exceptions where you play badly and win and you win and play badly or you get one off freak results or even beating a team above well above your ability from time to time, but football is generally a straightforward and simple game. IF we play well enough and to our potential we can beat Scotland, if we don't we won't*. The views of how we play differ on here to what I hear and see from anyone else off here, it is that simple.

* Draws have been left out for extra simplicity ;-)

**Again there are few certainties in life, something magnificent could happen.

---

Only that last sentence had anything to do with what I said.

I just find it amazing you go to Ireland matches and hear only one view, a totally opposite view to that expressed by Ireland fans on foot.ie. That's a deeply weird thing to happen. I go to Ireland matches and hear all sorts of opinions. I hear them from people you've met at away matches too. But they must conform to an opinion - the right opinion, of course - when they're around you.

I don't want to alarm you Paul, but they might be robots...

Not robots, other people out of politeness do try to talk to him but he only hears the voices from his own head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

Now I feel sorry for you, you're life must be very complicated, if you think football its not straightforward, its extremely simple. Your posts suggest that complication though and unending questioning. I wonder how you contemplate a route from A to b that has 6 different options. Scary :P It's all about results win or lose, if you play well you increase the chances of winning assuming the opposition are a similar or lower level, if you don't play well and the opposition are of similar level you increase the risk of losing. There are of course exceptions where you play badly and win and you win and play badly or you get one off freak results or even beating a team above well above your ability from time to time, but football is generally a straightforward and simple game. IF we play well enough and to our potential we can beat Scotland, if we don't we won't*. The views of how we play differ on here to what I hear and see from anyone else off here, it is that simple.

* Draws have been left out for extra simplicity ;-)

**Again there are few certainties in life, something magnificent could happen.

---

Very much about what I've been saying about margins etc.

I've come across some muppets here and very definitely muppets at the matches and in far flung places too. In fact I come across more clichéd /herd opinions at live matches. The view of some distinct sections being better than others doesn't cut my mustard. The guy I was sitting beside in Stockholm thought we were missing Whelan FFS!

At the old Lansdowne, I used to sit beside a guy who absolutely despised Steve Staunton. Gave him dogs abuse, all day long. This was the 2002 campaign and before the home match against Portugal - when Stan and Richard Dunne were unexpectedly drafted into centre back due to injury - he was spitting feathers. Stan going on to cement his place and become captain at the WC didn't do him any good.

After Stan's retirement, he transferred his hatred to Robbie Keane. He was completely toxic.

Yep, I come across these guys all the time. McGeady was a big hate figure for one guy I sat beside. He blamed the 4-0 defeat to Spain squarely at his feet.

Any game I've been to, McGeady is the biggest villain. Very unfair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Yep, I come across these guys all the time. McGeady was a big hate figure for one guy I sat beside. He blamed the 4-0 defeat to Spain squarely at his feet.

---

The guy next to me in the pub didn't like McGeady either. But the barman loved him. My barber wasn't sure about him. My aul lady didn't know who I was talking about. If I ever find myself in a large group, for example a travelling away support, or an internet forum, and everyone in their group agreed with each other with no unpopular or polarising opinions, remind me to look around for James Cromwell.